Killer Wireless-N 1103 Review: Can Qualcomm Take On Centrino?
-
Page 1:Killer Wireless: Is It Able To Usurp Intel's Centrino?
-
Page 2:Killer Wireless-N 1103: Nebulous Claims To Superiority
-
Page 3:What And How We Tested
-
Page 4:Benchmark Results: 2.4 GHz Transfer Tests
-
Page 5:Benchmark Results: 5.0 GHz Transfer Tests
-
Page 6:Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest, 2.4 GHZ
-
Page 7:Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest, 5.0 GHz
-
Page 8:Benchmark Results: GaNE, 2.4 GHz
-
Page 9:Benchmark Results: GaNE, 5.0 GHz
-
Page 10:Where Does Qualcomm's Hardware Make Sense?
Benchmark Results: 5.0 GHz Transfer Tests
Craziness, right? At first glance, it seems pretty obvious that the Intel 6300 is not the adapter you want for 5 GHz work. Download performance on our 2 GB archive is remarkably similar in our same-room tests, but just one wall of obstruction sends our 6300 into a tailspin. However, we should point out that all three adapters were able to successfully upload from Location 3 transmitting over the 5.0 GHz band, which may be counterintuitive given that 2.4 GHz is supposed to be better at longer distances. This shows just how much damage ambient 2.4 GHz interference has on modern Wi-Fi connections.
We should also point out that we had a 5.0 GHz wireless bridge device in operation about eight feet away from our Location 3 test point. So this is means all adapters were holding connections even in the face of a nearby interference source.
With the 200 MB folder, we see a similar story. The Cisco USB-based adapter performs surprisingly well, while the Intel 6300 struggles, even though it partially redeems itself by downloading quickly in the third location.
Again, we see Cisco and Qualcomm moving many small files at almost the same throughput as one large archive, even at Location 3. And compare the Location 3 download times at 5 GHz against the 2.4 GHz results. There’s no question which radio band we’d prefer, regardless of distance. In surveying all of these results, though, Qualcomm emerges as the clear leader, even if it falls a second or two behind in particular cases. Cisco and Intel shine occasionally, but the Killer card does well consistently.
- Killer Wireless: Is It Able To Usurp Intel's Centrino?
- Killer Wireless-N 1103: Nebulous Claims To Superiority
- What And How We Tested
- Benchmark Results: 2.4 GHz Transfer Tests
- Benchmark Results: 5.0 GHz Transfer Tests
- Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest, 2.4 GHZ
- Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest, 5.0 GHz
- Benchmark Results: GaNE, 2.4 GHz
- Benchmark Results: GaNE, 5.0 GHz
- Where Does Qualcomm's Hardware Make Sense?
I still think I will be waiting for 802.11ac before upgrading from G though.
Thanks for this nice article.
I own an Alienware M17xR3, with the Killer 1103.
Upon installation, the driver was causing me issues (nothing big tho), and I decided to follow a forum recommendation and install the Atheros Osprey driver instead of Killer's.
It seems the two card are identical apart from the name on it. (Maybe I am misleaded)
It could be interesting to see if the Killer 1103 gets any improvement using the Killer driver vs. the vanilla Atheros drivers, and see if "years of working with the windows tcp stack" pays off. Or if your performance improvement is due to a good, but still normal card.
Indeed, it is an issue. I ended up wiring the house through the HVAC ducts, which is a terrible idea (breaks all sorts of building codes), but better than drilling holes all throughout the house only to move to wireless within the next 5-10 years.
http://www.amazon.com/Express-Wireless-Adapter-Antennas-miniPCI-E/dp/B005JTEREW
Most folks are running their wireless through several partitioned walls and 20'~30'. The key variable is what's in the walls and how much interference you're running across.
I our current and new house we have a centralized switch and CAT-6 distribution, PowerLine, and (2) Access Points 802.11a/b/g/n. That said, there's NO FRIGGING way I'm going to transfer a 2GB file through the air even though I 'can' -- Flash Drive or NIC. In our house every work area, TV, and bedroom has wired CAT-6 so the majority of WiFi is for our Phones and tablets (e.g. iPhone & iPad).
Further, IF you're using any form of wireless for a Desktop you need to run to the store and either use CAT-5e/6 as your first choice and/or $60~$110 and get a pair of PowerLine. Some of the new Router/Switches/WiFi adapters are including PowerLine built-in.
Lastly, very few Notebooks have the option to accept a half-mini PCIe Card.
3.63GB EXE - 4:06s | 3905548288 Bytes | 15.14MB/s
2.14GB ZIP - 2:23.8s | 2306882779 Bytes | 15.30 MB/s
These are just Drag and Drop via Explorer.
While I appreciate and sympathize with the remark about plaster walls, the bolded statement is just flat out wrong. Half height cards are the standard now. Intel does not even offer the 6200 or 6300 cards in full height
If you want high speed, get 500Mb power line. It will beat out the wireless easily, unless you have some serious problem with your electrical wiring.
DD-WRT is the answer there. It slaughters the stock firmware in all routers. Tomato does too.
Even my four year old Gateway M-1624 has TWO half-mini PCIe card slots for wireless cards and such. Most notebook computers nowadays have at least one such slot. In fact, almost all modern notebook computers have at least one such slot. Many have more than one.
I can't help but think of the connection to the PC. 9MB/s just screams FastEthernet. I could understand DD-WRT contributing to a 10% or even 20% increase in perfomance, but we are talking a 60% to 70% difference in performance.
I have both X58's and an X79 with 6-core CPUs and an HP EliteBook Mobile Workstation, but my no means is any of that 'typical' nor does it by any stretch of the imagination represent the Majority. Operative word Majority.
Most Notebook's either have their WiFi (or other forms of wireless) - Integrated or Non-User replaceable or accessible.
Sure, 'some' Notebooks have ALL sorts of options and user configurable add-ons. Again, the majority simply do not.